heres the rub, only feds do this in pvp, and 99% of pvp is fed vs fed, take out fed vs fed and youll cut this by at least 99% as now youll be against kdf teams, we dont afk, we just decloak and burn you to the ground. and you can always group with friends and que together to avoid the ******s
LOL!
I remember before there was FvF...
Some Klingons decided to punish the Fed players because Cryptic had not given then enough content and they were mad at talk of Feds getting FvF... So, using their superior Klingon smarts they decided to boycott FvK.... Cuz if they make some Feds suffer in beta, and prevent testing of the PvP system, then Cryptic is sure to give in to their demands... LOL!
I laughed and laughed at each Klingon player's public announcement that they were violating their beta agreements and intended to make Fed players suffer so that Cryptic would give them more. It was like they kept asking Cryptic to slap the guy next to them because they really wanted a hug.
Regardless of their comedic actions Crpyitc put in FvF and the boycott was ended becuase it accomplished nothing (excpet a lot of lulz at those boycotting Klingons).
FvF is here to stay... Just like KvK. Take out FvF and KvK must go as well.
Some Klingons decided to punish the Fed players because Cryptic had not given then enough content and they were mad at talk of Feds getting FvF... So, using their superior Klingon smarts they decided to boycott FvK.... Cuz if they make some Feds suffer in beta, and prevent testing of the PvP system, then Cryptic is sure to give in to their demands... LOL!
I laughed and laughed at each Klingon player's public announcement that they were violating their beta agreements and intended to make Fed players suffer so that Cryptic would give them more. It was like they kept asking Cryptic to slap the guy next to them because they really wanted a hug.
Regardless of their comedic actions Crpyitc put in FvF and the boycott was ended becuase it accomplished nothing (excpet a lot of lulz at those boycotting Klingons).
FvF is here to stay... Just like KvK. Take out FvF and KvK must go as well.
Those boycotts came after launch, not during beta. FvK was very easy to find in beta, but the KDF started wearing thing a month or two into the game because it was such a grind to get to the top and there was nothing else to do while you were there but PVP. They added dailies before FvF and that was the time you'd see 100+ feds waiting in the queue trying to do their dailies for marks. The boycotts were never that popular, though.
Those boycotts came after launch, not during beta. FvK was very easy to find in beta, but the KDF started wearing thing a month or two into the game because it was such a grind to get to the top and there was nothing else to do while you were there but PVP. They added dailies before FvF and that was the time you'd see 100+ feds waiting in the queue trying to do their dailies for marks. The boycotts were never that popular, though.
Here is that special "boycott FvK" thread from open beta (note the dates) to "punish" Fed players because of imbalances in the game by Cryptic.
Also, here is one (of many) of those exciting conversations in open beta where some Klingons demanded that Feds not get FvF until the Klingon side was "complete".
If you don't participate, you don't get anything - you should also be discouraged from requeueing as your actions ruin the game for others. AFK Heroes have no right to ruin the game for others simply due to their own desire for emblems.
The problem is that punishing non performing players will escalate the problem even further. You cannot introduce a simple vote kick system because it will 100% abused ('i don't like that guy / he is not in the fotm ship, let's kick him). And you will not get back the chunk of players who stoped participating in the public queues (for whatever reason).
Instead of focusing resources on a system to weed out black sheeps from the pvp games, why don't 'just' focus on improving the fun of pvp matches, which might be harder, but will be a lot more promising in the end.
The problem is that punishing non performing players will escalate the problem even further. You cannot introduce a simple vote kick system because it will 100% abused ('i don't like that guy / he is not in the fotm ship, let's kick him). And you will not get back the chunk of players who stoped participating in the public queues (for whatever reason).
Instead of focusing resources on a system to weed out black sheeps from the pvp games, why don't 'just' focus on improving the fun of pvp matches, which might be harder, but will be a lot more promising in the end.
If you're running a team through an STF and a player refuses to participate, you get the option of booting them as team leader.
If you're playing PvP on a team and someone refuses to play the entire match, you... ??? :rolleyes:
If you can report a player for AFK, the server can verify they are AFK, and a vote comes up to kick - I'm totally cool with.
We can work toward fixing both issues though: making PvP more fun isn't mutually exclusive with weeding out the idiots.
If you're running a team through an STF and a player refuses to participate, you get the option of booting them as team leader.
If you're playing PvP on a team and someone refuses to play the entire match, you... ??? :rolleyes:
If you can report a player for AFK, the server can verify they are AFK, and a vote comes up to kick - I'm totally cool with.
We can work toward fixing both issues though: making PvP more fun isn't mutually exclusive with weeding out the idiots.
Problem with booting people from an STF is it can mean completely restarting the mission. It's not like you can boot someone and another player can instantly jump in wherever you are.
If a person refuses to play in a PVP match, your side loses, you re-queue and hopefully you aren't on the same side with that jerk again. Losing isn't fun but time invested in losing a PVP match versus restarting a STF from the beginning isn't comparable.
One thing that undoubtedly complicates matters is the difference between an AFK'er and someone sitting there waiting for a point to switch in a cap n hold map. While I'm sure they can do tests for location on the map and such, it is a bit more complicated than just checking to see if someone isn't moving.
AFKers are definitely a nuisance in PVP. As are arrogant blowhards and suicidal idiots along with countless other personality stereotypes. Random PVP matches will always have someone there who is going to be a problem. Rarely do I finish a PVP match without adding someone to my ignore list.
For PVP to be successful requires players to queue up. I think the dev team has to carefully consider any change which is going to drive players away from queuing up. I'd rather lose a match due to an AFKer (another reason to reward win/lose sides equally) rather than wait an exceptionally long time for a game to queue up because people have fallen victim to "boot abuse" or simply don't bother since you only get something for winning. Losing an hour+ long cap 'n hold map and getting nothing for it is not going to make PVP more fun.
For PVP to be successful requires players to queue up.
No. For a queue to be succesful it requires players to queue up. PvP doesn't require a queue. It can be implemented sans queue. Personally, I'd prefer it that way. Open PvP systems.
I think the dev team has to carefully consider any change which is going to drive players away from queuing up. I'd rather lose a match due to an AFKer (another reason to reward win/lose sides equally) rather than wait an exceptionally long time for a game to queue up because people have fallen victim to "boot abuse" or simply don't bother since you only get something for winning. Losing an hour+ long cap 'n hold map and getting nothing for it is not going to make PVP more fun.
I'd rather lose to players who enjoy PvP than win against people who just showed up to get more virtual carrots.
If, you're going to reward people for just being there, why be concerned with balanced teams? Simply throw everyone in the queue into a PVP instance, every 2-5 minutes, as long as there are at least two players in the queue. Assign teams randomly without regard for faction or balance considerations.
I've afked in PVP in this game. I've done worse. I've deliberately run in repeatedly to get myself killed quickly to get arenas over with. Here's a list of reasons why:
1) Most common reason: I'm on a TRIBBLE team. They won't join an actual team. They won't communicate. They don't heal the person getting focused, and the team we're against is doing all these things. There's really no point. I can tell after we're obliterated in the first engagement where this game is going. I have a choice between a quick loss, and a slower loss. How does it make sense to do anything other than lose quickly, then re-queue and hope for an actual team?
2) I'm in an un-fun situation. This happens less than it used to. But way back in the long ago time, when I levelled my first (Klingon) toon, and had to do it entirely with PVP, there would be times where I'd get into a PVP match where, for example, I was LC1 or 2, and the entire opposing team was LC10. They'd proceed to focus me to death every time I got anywhere near them and there was nothing I could do about it. Not fun, but I had no other way to level my toon, so I'd usually cloak and hide somewhere after being killed the first three or four times in seconds.
3) This one is unique to Cap and Hold. Some times the matches just take too damn long. Often I PVP for fun, and when I do, a long, drawn out, closely fought game is a blast. If, on the other hand, I'm just on one of my alts trying to get the PVP daily done before I go to bed or before I have to go do something else, and I get into one of those games that lasts for close to two hours, I eventually just get sick of it and sit out the second hour because I'm bored. If you PVP much in this game, you've been in boring cap and hold games, where people aren't really fighting, they're just capping nodes back and forth and sustaining and endless, perpetual tie. Its boring as hell, especially when you're just trying to get a daily over with. Apparently other people like this type of game, though, because when I proposed on the PVP forum that they should put in a mechanic that limits cap and hold games to, say, 45 minutes or an hour, people went crazy.
My point: The best way to prevent afk'ing behaviors and still keep people queueing up for PVP is to make it better and more exciting. The fact that you aren't auto-teamed makes no sense. The fact that the level band gap is so wide doesn't make a lot of sense at low levels. Not setting up the games to take a standard unit of time doesn't make sense. Fix those three things and you'll see a lot fewer afk folks, I think, if my experience is typical.
I just think the solutions are worse than the problem. I hadn't realized that the private queues would let you get the daily rewards though. I'd heard you could for cap and holds but not for arenas. If either is possible though, a lot of people will forego the queues for private matches with friends but people who want to afk through probably wont. So now you have a higher percentage of afk'ers.
The real answers are still making pvp more fun in general and less unpleasant for the losers (like no enemy chat in pvp) so that you get enough people in the queues to let the matches move quickly. Right now it takes a long time to get a match in a queue and it's only luck if you aren't in the middle of some pve mission by the time it does come up for starting. They probably should rotate maps so everyone in cap and hold queues gets the same match until it's full. The same for arenas. Dropping rewards for losing still means fewer entering the queues which has it's own inertia and feedback, resulting in even fewer the next time entering the queues. It means a lot of matches may be unfinishable because players may leave en masse when they think they have no chance to win and no reward for staying. Especially when it means getting insulted by the winners.
I can live without doing pvp ever again. So it's not about me. But if pvp were properly done I might decide to do it. For now though, as I've said for years, I'd pvp if it weren't for the jerks I'd have to associate with for it. I think whenever a Klink wants to mouth off during a match all we should hear is 'mwah mwah mwah" like on Charlie Brown. Or maybe you could put your own chat in place so that whenever the enemy talks you hear "I have a very small member" but only you hear that. Other's hear whatever they set for themselves. Rid the game of taunting and insults and you improve pvp.
I just think the solutions are worse than the problem. I hadn't realized that the private queues would let you get the daily rewards though. I'd heard you could for cap and holds but not for arenas. If either is possible though, a lot of people will forego the queues for private matches with friends but people who want to afk through probably wont. So now you have a higher percentage of afk'ers.
The real answers are still making pvp more fun in general and less unpleasant for the losers (like no enemy chat in pvp) so that you get enough people in the queues to let the matches move quickly. Right now it takes a long time to get a match in a queue and it's only luck if you aren't in the middle of some pve mission by the time it does come up for starting. They probably should rotate maps so everyone in cap and hold queues gets the same match until it's full. The same for arenas. Dropping rewards for losing still means fewer entering the queues which has it's own inertia and feedback, resulting in even fewer the next time entering the queues. It means a lot of matches may be unfinishable because players may leave en masse when they think they have no chance to win and no reward for staying. Especially when it means getting insulted by the winners.
I can live without doing pvp ever again. So it's not about me. But if pvp were properly done I might decide to do it. For now though, as I've said for years, I'd pvp if it weren't for the jerks I'd have to associate with for it. I think whenever a Klink wants to mouth off during a match all we should hear is 'mwah mwah mwah" like on Charlie Brown. Or maybe you could put your own chat in place so that whenever the enemy talks you hear "I have a very small member" but only you hear that. Other's hear whatever they set for themselves. Rid the game of taunting and insults and you improve pvp.
Funny over 9/10 matches in this game I've seen nothing but good sportsmanship at the end of a match.
Kerrat really seems to be the exception of pvp behavior and not the rule. I've had several discussions with people on both Fed and Klinkside about build set ups and etc after a given match.
kerrat on the other hand? Is the armpit of pvp. It's where in my opinion the Losers go that can't actually do pvp without the aid of Spawn Camping, and NPCs to wear down your opponents. And with their lack of skills I've also found comes a distinct lack of manners.
Overall though the PvP community in STO is a friendly and fairly well mannered bunch. Especially compared to other games out there.
Funny over 9/10 matches in this game I've seen nothing but good sportsmanship at the end of a match.
Kerrat really seems to be the exception of pvp behavior and not the rule. I've had several discussions with people on both Fed and Klinkside about build set ups and etc after a given match.
kerrat on the other hand? Is the armpit of pvp. It's where in my opinion the Losers go that can't actually do pvp without the aid of Spawn Camping, and NPCs to wear down your opponents. And with their lack of skills I've also found comes a distinct lack of manners.
Overall though the PvP community in STO is a friendly and fairly well mannered bunch. Especially compared to other games out there.
Most of my time in pvp has been in Kerrat since you don't have to wait on a queue for it and there are dailies on some days and for Klingons it's one of the ways to level up early on. But I have several glaring examples of jerkitude in arenas that turned me off of playing them. Remember, it only takes one jerk to turn off a new pvp player from doing it again. I remember my first time doing ground pvp very well. I never saw a teammate but I saw 4 klingons every time I respawned where they would gank me over and over. I challenged them to send their best player to fight me one on one but laughter and insults ensued. I remember "you're in our world now, you will be ganked forever" or something to that effect along with I'm a loser, I can't play, etc. because I couldn't beat 4 on 1. I ended up logging out rather than give those jerks a win from my deaths. That was my first match. I'd have been willing to be the punching bag to finish my quest if not for the jerks.
It didn't help that I had 5 years of UO to start with. The jerkitude from pks there was almost a wonder to behold. People would invade your home daily for 6 months to kill you and steal your 2 gp bedroll which was the only possession in the house. Organize a way to fight them and they'd just magically relocate somewhere else. They weren't actually interested in a good fight; they were interested in getting rich without risk, and especially interested in causing upset and discomfort for others. I think the term "griefer" may have been invented at that time. I've seen their kind in STO as well. They come out more easily on the forums where you see over and over that it's not enough to win the fight, they have to rub it in and make sure the other person feels punished as well. For me, life is too short to deal with that while I'm playing a game for entertainment. I'd rather do pve missions solo forever than encounter one more of them. Turn off the enemy chat and you'll gain more people to play pvp; so say I.
1) If RL suddenly happens and you are forced to go AFK during a match. This whole thread isn't about you, so all of you who are defending that scenario can stop. No one is talking about that.
2) What this thread IS talking about are the people that join PvP matches solely to complete the daily *AND* with no intention of actually playing. They either AFK or, imo even worse, willfully and purposely feed the other team kills by throwing themselves at the enemy.
3) I've read alot of the reasons for why ppl would do this; they just want the emblems, they think the klingons are OP and just give up, they think the Fed 'pre-made' on the other team is OP and just give up, etc.
> The reasons for this behavior are irrelevant, if you are doing this, you are ruining the PvP aspect of the game and should be banned from PvP (feel free to enjoy the rest of the game :cool:)
SOLUTION: Rank players like in StarCraft2 - that way if you are an avid PvPer you will be fighting like minded people.
If you are new to PvP and still learning, you will be fighting other ppl that are new/low ranked. This should prevent the stigma many new-to-PvP people get where "OMG they just facerolled me 15 - 0.
Lets be honest, those of us who pvp often enjoy rolling scrubs 15 to 0. But it gets boring and we start looking for legitimate competition. I had an amazing FvK last night that was down to the wire. Final was 15 to 13; Feds win. Hardest fought match of the night. Everyone was talking in zone afterwards about how awesome the match was. If we are fighting ppl that are ranked, every match will be like this....or atleast, MORE of them.
Final Thoughts: Some people love PvP, some hate it and some would like to do it more but feel like the 'new kid at school with last years cloths' - those that hate it stay out of it, those that want to learn should be given the chance........those that want to abuse the system to gain 3 more emblems per day...well, you are the saddest bunch of people and I hope someone poops in your cereal.
1)Lets be honest, those of us who pvp often enjoy rolling scrubs 15 to 0. But it gets boring and we start looking for legitimate competition. I had an amazing FvK last night that was down to the wire. Final was 15 to 13; Feds win. Hardest fought match of the night. Everyone was talking in zone afterwards about how awesome the match was. If we are fighting ppl that are ranked, every match will be like this....or atleast, MORE of them.
Here's another possible solution:
Make it an elimination encounter. No respawns. Last ship flying wins. Besides feeling more like a battle than a sporting contest. It's fast, which should address some of the excuses given by those who've admitted to afk'ing.
When you're disabled you can opt to stay and watch or exit.
Doesn't eliminate the problems, but might lessen the impact when they occur. Should decrease queue wait times.
You could do listed rankings and do bouts of like-skilled players if you had enough people to fill the queues consistently while doing that. Right now it takes more than 30 minutes to get a match even without further segregating into ladders or skill tiers. Starcraft 2 can do this because they have perhaps a thousand times as many pvp'ers competing as STO does. Maybe ten thousand times more. You're going to need to increase the number of people entering the queues by a factor of 4 or so just to get the system flowing smoothly. Find the way to get people wanting to pvp to that extent, then you can start winnowing out people.
Make it an elimination encounter. No respawns. Last ship flying wins. Besides feeling more like a battle than a sporting contest. It's fast, which should address some of the excuses given by those who've admitted to afk'ing.
When you're disabled you can opt to stay and watch or exit.
Doesn't eliminate the problems, but might lessen the impact when they occur. Should decrease queue wait times.
At least the matches would rotate quickly and even the afk'ers could be the one kill they would have provided anyway.
Make it an elimination encounter. No respawns. Last ship flying wins. Besides feeling more like a battle than a sporting contest. It's fast, which should address some of the excuses given by those who've admitted to afk'ing.
When you're disabled you can opt to stay and watch or exit.
Doesn't eliminate the problems, but might lessen the impact when they occur. Should decrease queue wait times.
if you think their is a cruiser spree now.....implementing this would make 100% of players roll cruisers/carriers. Or, 5 man BoP teams that do the old griefing tactic of killing 1 then waiting for CD's.
Good initiative, poor judgment.
Shakkar, you have a good point. Ranking is the only thing I could think of that would remove "afk pvpers" without adding some sort of ban/kick/report that would undoubtedly be abused. Since the afkers would never rank high, those that do pvp for pvp's sake would never see them and those that are new wouldn't mind the easy kill now and then
1 x PvP Daily - 3 Emblems (C&H - technically, quickest, if you know the shortcut; Ker'rat and Arenas - roughly the same, if PuGging, if you're running with friends and taking them seriously, can potentially take a bit longer).
1 x Fleet Action Daily - 3 Emblems (Even if you have to go from start to finish in one of these, if you enter the low-level instance, at most, this will take an hour.)
1 x B'Tran Exploration - 3 Emblems (5-15 minutes per mission on Normal, longer for higher difficulties or larger teams.)
+1 B'Tran Emblem every 30 minutes (about how long a typical cycle of the 3 missions takes).
1 x Aid the Deferi - 3 Emblems (30-45 minutes on Normal, longer for higher difficulties or larger teams).
1 x Rescue Deferi Captives - 1 Emblem (2 minutes, if no combat, 5-10 minutes depending on level, with combat).
1 x Traelus Satellite Repair - 1 Emblem (5-10 minutes, longer for higher difficulty or larger team.)
1 x Defense Contract (Alhena) - 1 Emblem (5-10 minutes, longer for higher difficulty or larger team.)
1 x Aid Sh'mar (Freighter near Zibal) - 1 Emblem (5-10 minutes, longer for higher difficulty or larger team.)
Standard Daily Emblems Available: 17 (Currently)
Optional Bonus Emblems:
Up to 5 per STF completed (awarded by 1's or 2's when reaching checkpoints in many of the STF's) daily.
+1 each B'Tran cycle completed (every 30 minutes)
+3 emblems every 4-5 days, after gaining enough Computer Cores in the Defense Contract (Alhena) Daily mission.
The Devs are adding new Dailies all the time, which increases the available pool of missions that award Emblems for their completion.
Additionally, you can 'double up' on Emblems, every other day, if, like I do with my 2 VA's, take all available missions on all available characters. Do the Daily Missions for Emblems on ONE of those characters, then do whatever else you'd like. The following day, switch to an Alt, do their Daily Missions TWICE (as the cooldown timers for Dailies start when you ACCEPT the missions, not when you turn them in), gain twice as many Emblems; then do whatever you'd like. The 3rd day, switch back to your first (or another Alt) and do their Dailies TWICE, again, gaining twice as many Emblems in a day's play...
Basically, there are plenty of available Emblems, that don't require an enormous dedication of time (if you can't devote at least 2 hours of time to play, it's hard to justify paying for an MMO... Just ask my wife. )
Thus, if a person doesn't enjoy PvP, there is really no 'need' for such a person to queue up for PvP, and potentially ruin the efforts of their fellow players by 'afk-ing', etc.
Possibly. On the other hand, that seems to be a fairly certain prediction where behavior is rather unpredictable. If, behavior were that easy to predict, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think it's worth a trial period, as an option, before dismissing it.
1) SOLUTION: Rank players like in StarCraft2 - that way if you are an avid PvPer you will be fighting like minded people.
If you are new to PvP and still learning, you will be fighting other ppl that are new/low ranked. This should prevent the stigma many new-to-PvP people get where "OMG they just facerolled me 15 - 0.
The problem with a ranking system like SC2, is that you need a large pool of people to draw from. That game has zillions of people playing, so finding two to eight with about the same ranking for a random match takes a few seconds. This game can barely manage to get two teams of about the same level together in less than an hour, and according to one of my friends it's just short of impossible if you're not at the level cap and/or playing at off-peak times.
Another issue is that it might have to be set up to track your Global for the rankings, rather than an individual character. (Yes, that's a level 15 Gorn. But you have 500 hours of PVP experience. No, you can not enter the New Players match.)
Been following this thread a bit and I've been pondering possible solutions.
Haven't read every post in the thread so if this has been posted before I apologise.
The following suggestion would work I think for CnH but I'm not sure about other pvp types.
I'd prefer a contribution system that tracks players in pvp. Win/loss still has no bearing on emblem reward with this system and personally I'm ok with that as you can have a cracking pvp match, do very little wrong and still lose - players should not be penalised in these cases.
Ok on to it:
What i propose is a modification to the current scoring system to include captures and time (in seconds) in the pvp match. the modified scoreboard looking something like this:
(the figures above i pulled out of the air just to illustrate but I think most will be able to figure out where I'm going with this)
What this does is allow for a fairly simple formula to be applied to to the scores for each player to come up with a 'Contribution' figure.
If you apply the formula (damage+healing+(captures*50000)/time and add another column the table now looks like this.
Now if the system takes a minimum of 100 as the contributing factor then the afker (Grant) would end up with nothing and so he hasn't qualified. This system also uses the individuals dmg/healing/caps vs time in the match rather than overall dmg/healing/caps for the team.
What I really would like added along with a system like this would be a pvp repeatable like the VA/LG exploration where you could get a mission to 'Contribute' in 3 pvp matches and get 1 emblem for each set in addition to the daily.
What do others think about this?
Cheers
EDIT: The forum dont like tables so put in screenshot instead
That system could work and work well methinks. It also provides incentive for the healers to really do there job as healing would be DMG by another name so to speak.
I hate AFKers. I just wanted to get that out there.
However, if when you sign up for pvp, you click the ""join any Game" option instead of the" join new game"
you WILL wind up in a pvp match, even if you never push another button. I have many times signed up for pvp, realized the wait was going to be longer than my attention span, (5 minutes or so) & gone to do pve while I'm waiting.Finished a mission, gone outside to have a cigarette, then come back inside expecting to have been kicked from the game because i've been afk 15-20 minutes, only to find myself in an arena or C&H, with a team invite on the screen & (understandably) angry players cursing me out in zone chat.I never pushed engage on the 1 minute timer , I wasn't even in the house! This has happened twice to me this week.I have also been doing pve missions after signing up for "any game" been in the middle of my mission, & then got the 10 second countdown on my screen without being offered the option to hit engage on the 1 minute timer.I now log out of the game every time I'm afk longer than a minute, because i am ALWAYS in a Que for pvp. & not being there to push the engage button when you are offered the game will not keep you out of the match anymore.Sometimes it doesn't even give you the option. if the Devs would fix this it might solve at least a portion of the afk problem.I am in NO WAY excusing afk greifing,but i now KNOW that sometimes its accidental. I realize that lots of people do afk on purpose. There should be a way for active players to kick afk players, whether It's accidental or on purpose. why should 1 person be able to ruin a match for 9 other people?
As Spock said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
What you speak of has already been addressed in many other MMOs.. Normaly with a "player report" button that the offending player gets voted out by a majority and can only stay in the game being finding someone to attack in the next 15 seconds for example.
What you speak of has already been addressed in many other MMOs.. Normaly with a "player report" button that the offending player gets voted out by a majority and can only stay in the game being finding someone to attack in the next 15 seconds for example.
Heres a thought;
If a player remains unmoving for more than 30 seconds or remains moving but out of combat for more than 10 minutes in cap and hold or 3 in Arena then all team-mates automatically get a little option in the right side interaction area to vote to kick him.
If more than half the other team-members vote to kick, he gets kicked, looses 100 Starfleet Merit/Honor, and can not re-queue for PvP for another 10 minutes at least.
If a player remains unmoving for more than 30 seconds or remains moving but out of combat for more than 10 minutes in cap and hold or 3 in Arena then all team-mates automatically get a little option in the right side interaction area to vote to kick him.
If more than half the other team-members vote to kick, he gets kicked, looses 100 Starfleet Merit/Honor, and can not re-queue for PvP for another 10 minutes at least.
Or we could just make pvp more competitive and interesting so that people don't feel the need to afk. Like faster paced games, tighter brackets, and auto-teaming.
I know, I know. Nobody wants to do anything positive, we just want to punish those other people who we hate.
Open PvP war areas would minimzie this...because you wouldnt be locked into a closed off battle arena with these guys. Ideally, there wouldnt be an emblem or other screwy missions like "die 20 times in a PvP match" to soil the engagements.
There would be no purpose for being out there, other than to fight. Players can come and go as the please, there would be no queues, no Team death match up to X team kills.
You'd be able to enter engagement areas with groups and teams of your choice, yuo can call in for othe rplayers to re-enforce, you could have your whole group exitthe attle area, leaving the AFKer in a "dead" engagement area, while you and your team fly off to look for another battle in the Sector.
AFKers only benefit from the poorly structures reward system(rewards and how they are obtained, will always dictate behavior)...and the fact that they can AFK in a pre-defined "battle in a bottle" that has a definitive end, and its that end that grants the reward, not one's actions and contribution.
Open PvP Sectors can be designed to be inheritly open-ended. Where the objective has a beginning and end, but because its open, it can be used to reward the faction as a whole(territory capture), but any personal reward has to be based on the player's actions....not the side he was on when the objective was met.
Open PvP Sectors can be designed to be inheritly open-ended. Where the objective has a beginning and end, but because its open, it can be used to reward the faction as a whole(territory capture), but any personal reward has to be based on the player's actions....not the side he was on when the objective was met.
The game seems to keep pretty good track of damage/healing. So, how about
a system with around 10 - 20 Orbital Weapon Platforms surrounding a planet.
Platforms start out as Disabled (nuetral).
Players who get within range can Repair (Set Faction) Platforms.
Active Platforms can be Disabled and Repaired by opposing Factions.
Players being disabled will be immediately Respawned in Sector Space and restricted from reentering the System for an escalating period of time (5 -30 minutes).
Rewards for players can be set by the amount of damage/healing they do/get in the system with opposing players being worth significantly more than NPC's.
Factions holding all Platforms are able to Beam to the Planets surface where fields of Anomalies are waiting to be collected.
These miscreants should simply get a progressively longer ban, starting with a day, then two and so on in geometric progression.
Also, if the losing side received nothing (just like RL) it would negate this behavior completely.
This should also be added for people who leave a PvP arena
Yours in Mnhei'sahe Plasma,
Star*Dagger
while i agree with the statement of getting nothing if you lose i am also dead set against this as i pug a lot of the time especialy when grinding my fed toons.
what a nightmare that would be if i didnt get anything for games my side lost.
personally id rather see a min damage healing system brought in something like maybe you gotta
get half the damage of the highest damage dealer on your team.
But again that i think would be so hard to impliment.
Comments
LOL!
I remember before there was FvF...
Some Klingons decided to punish the Fed players because Cryptic had not given then enough content and they were mad at talk of Feds getting FvF... So, using their superior Klingon smarts they decided to boycott FvK.... Cuz if they make some Feds suffer in beta, and prevent testing of the PvP system, then Cryptic is sure to give in to their demands... LOL!
I laughed and laughed at each Klingon player's public announcement that they were violating their beta agreements and intended to make Fed players suffer so that Cryptic would give them more. It was like they kept asking Cryptic to slap the guy next to them because they really wanted a hug.
Regardless of their comedic actions Crpyitc put in FvF and the boycott was ended becuase it accomplished nothing (excpet a lot of lulz at those boycotting Klingons).
FvF is here to stay... Just like KvK. Take out FvF and KvK must go as well.
Those boycotts came after launch, not during beta. FvK was very easy to find in beta, but the KDF started wearing thing a month or two into the game because it was such a grind to get to the top and there was nothing else to do while you were there but PVP. They added dailies before FvF and that was the time you'd see 100+ feds waiting in the queue trying to do their dailies for marks. The boycotts were never that popular, though.
Here is that special "boycott FvK" thread from open beta (note the dates) to "punish" Fed players because of imbalances in the game by Cryptic.
Also, here is one (of many) of those exciting conversations in open beta where some Klingons demanded that Feds not get FvF until the Klingon side was "complete".
Good times... :rolleyes:
The problem is that punishing non performing players will escalate the problem even further. You cannot introduce a simple vote kick system because it will 100% abused ('i don't like that guy / he is not in the fotm ship, let's kick him). And you will not get back the chunk of players who stoped participating in the public queues (for whatever reason).
Instead of focusing resources on a system to weed out black sheeps from the pvp games, why don't 'just' focus on improving the fun of pvp matches, which might be harder, but will be a lot more promising in the end.
If you're running a team through an STF and a player refuses to participate, you get the option of booting them as team leader.
If you're playing PvP on a team and someone refuses to play the entire match, you... ??? :rolleyes:
If you can report a player for AFK, the server can verify they are AFK, and a vote comes up to kick - I'm totally cool with.
We can work toward fixing both issues though: making PvP more fun isn't mutually exclusive with weeding out the idiots.
Problem with booting people from an STF is it can mean completely restarting the mission. It's not like you can boot someone and another player can instantly jump in wherever you are.
If a person refuses to play in a PVP match, your side loses, you re-queue and hopefully you aren't on the same side with that jerk again. Losing isn't fun but time invested in losing a PVP match versus restarting a STF from the beginning isn't comparable.
One thing that undoubtedly complicates matters is the difference between an AFK'er and someone sitting there waiting for a point to switch in a cap n hold map. While I'm sure they can do tests for location on the map and such, it is a bit more complicated than just checking to see if someone isn't moving.
AFKers are definitely a nuisance in PVP. As are arrogant blowhards and suicidal idiots along with countless other personality stereotypes. Random PVP matches will always have someone there who is going to be a problem. Rarely do I finish a PVP match without adding someone to my ignore list.
For PVP to be successful requires players to queue up. I think the dev team has to carefully consider any change which is going to drive players away from queuing up. I'd rather lose a match due to an AFKer (another reason to reward win/lose sides equally) rather than wait an exceptionally long time for a game to queue up because people have fallen victim to "boot abuse" or simply don't bother since you only get something for winning. Losing an hour+ long cap 'n hold map and getting nothing for it is not going to make PVP more fun.
I'd rather lose to players who enjoy PvP than win against people who just showed up to get more virtual carrots.
If, you're going to reward people for just being there, why be concerned with balanced teams? Simply throw everyone in the queue into a PVP instance, every 2-5 minutes, as long as there are at least two players in the queue. Assign teams randomly without regard for faction or balance considerations.
1) Most common reason: I'm on a TRIBBLE team. They won't join an actual team. They won't communicate. They don't heal the person getting focused, and the team we're against is doing all these things. There's really no point. I can tell after we're obliterated in the first engagement where this game is going. I have a choice between a quick loss, and a slower loss. How does it make sense to do anything other than lose quickly, then re-queue and hope for an actual team?
2) I'm in an un-fun situation. This happens less than it used to. But way back in the long ago time, when I levelled my first (Klingon) toon, and had to do it entirely with PVP, there would be times where I'd get into a PVP match where, for example, I was LC1 or 2, and the entire opposing team was LC10. They'd proceed to focus me to death every time I got anywhere near them and there was nothing I could do about it. Not fun, but I had no other way to level my toon, so I'd usually cloak and hide somewhere after being killed the first three or four times in seconds.
3) This one is unique to Cap and Hold. Some times the matches just take too damn long. Often I PVP for fun, and when I do, a long, drawn out, closely fought game is a blast. If, on the other hand, I'm just on one of my alts trying to get the PVP daily done before I go to bed or before I have to go do something else, and I get into one of those games that lasts for close to two hours, I eventually just get sick of it and sit out the second hour because I'm bored. If you PVP much in this game, you've been in boring cap and hold games, where people aren't really fighting, they're just capping nodes back and forth and sustaining and endless, perpetual tie. Its boring as hell, especially when you're just trying to get a daily over with. Apparently other people like this type of game, though, because when I proposed on the PVP forum that they should put in a mechanic that limits cap and hold games to, say, 45 minutes or an hour, people went crazy.
My point: The best way to prevent afk'ing behaviors and still keep people queueing up for PVP is to make it better and more exciting. The fact that you aren't auto-teamed makes no sense. The fact that the level band gap is so wide doesn't make a lot of sense at low levels. Not setting up the games to take a standard unit of time doesn't make sense. Fix those three things and you'll see a lot fewer afk folks, I think, if my experience is typical.
The real answers are still making pvp more fun in general and less unpleasant for the losers (like no enemy chat in pvp) so that you get enough people in the queues to let the matches move quickly. Right now it takes a long time to get a match in a queue and it's only luck if you aren't in the middle of some pve mission by the time it does come up for starting. They probably should rotate maps so everyone in cap and hold queues gets the same match until it's full. The same for arenas. Dropping rewards for losing still means fewer entering the queues which has it's own inertia and feedback, resulting in even fewer the next time entering the queues. It means a lot of matches may be unfinishable because players may leave en masse when they think they have no chance to win and no reward for staying. Especially when it means getting insulted by the winners.
I can live without doing pvp ever again. So it's not about me. But if pvp were properly done I might decide to do it. For now though, as I've said for years, I'd pvp if it weren't for the jerks I'd have to associate with for it. I think whenever a Klink wants to mouth off during a match all we should hear is 'mwah mwah mwah" like on Charlie Brown. Or maybe you could put your own chat in place so that whenever the enemy talks you hear "I have a very small member" but only you hear that. Other's hear whatever they set for themselves. Rid the game of taunting and insults and you improve pvp.
Funny over 9/10 matches in this game I've seen nothing but good sportsmanship at the end of a match.
Kerrat really seems to be the exception of pvp behavior and not the rule. I've had several discussions with people on both Fed and Klinkside about build set ups and etc after a given match.
kerrat on the other hand? Is the armpit of pvp. It's where in my opinion the Losers go that can't actually do pvp without the aid of Spawn Camping, and NPCs to wear down your opponents. And with their lack of skills I've also found comes a distinct lack of manners.
Overall though the PvP community in STO is a friendly and fairly well mannered bunch. Especially compared to other games out there.
Most of my time in pvp has been in Kerrat since you don't have to wait on a queue for it and there are dailies on some days and for Klingons it's one of the ways to level up early on. But I have several glaring examples of jerkitude in arenas that turned me off of playing them. Remember, it only takes one jerk to turn off a new pvp player from doing it again. I remember my first time doing ground pvp very well. I never saw a teammate but I saw 4 klingons every time I respawned where they would gank me over and over. I challenged them to send their best player to fight me one on one but laughter and insults ensued. I remember "you're in our world now, you will be ganked forever" or something to that effect along with I'm a loser, I can't play, etc. because I couldn't beat 4 on 1. I ended up logging out rather than give those jerks a win from my deaths. That was my first match. I'd have been willing to be the punching bag to finish my quest if not for the jerks.
It didn't help that I had 5 years of UO to start with. The jerkitude from pks there was almost a wonder to behold. People would invade your home daily for 6 months to kill you and steal your 2 gp bedroll which was the only possession in the house. Organize a way to fight them and they'd just magically relocate somewhere else. They weren't actually interested in a good fight; they were interested in getting rich without risk, and especially interested in causing upset and discomfort for others. I think the term "griefer" may have been invented at that time. I've seen their kind in STO as well. They come out more easily on the forums where you see over and over that it's not enough to win the fight, they have to rub it in and make sure the other person feels punished as well. For me, life is too short to deal with that while I'm playing a game for entertainment. I'd rather do pve missions solo forever than encounter one more of them. Turn off the enemy chat and you'll gain more people to play pvp; so say I.
2) What this thread IS talking about are the people that join PvP matches solely to complete the daily *AND* with no intention of actually playing. They either AFK or, imo even worse, willfully and purposely feed the other team kills by throwing themselves at the enemy.
3) I've read alot of the reasons for why ppl would do this; they just want the emblems, they think the klingons are OP and just give up, they think the Fed 'pre-made' on the other team is OP and just give up, etc.
> The reasons for this behavior are irrelevant, if you are doing this, you are ruining the PvP aspect of the game and should be banned from PvP (feel free to enjoy the rest of the game :cool:)
SOLUTION: Rank players like in StarCraft2 - that way if you are an avid PvPer you will be fighting like minded people.
If you are new to PvP and still learning, you will be fighting other ppl that are new/low ranked. This should prevent the stigma many new-to-PvP people get where "OMG they just facerolled me 15 - 0.
Lets be honest, those of us who pvp often enjoy rolling scrubs 15 to 0. But it gets boring and we start looking for legitimate competition. I had an amazing FvK last night that was down to the wire. Final was 15 to 13; Feds win. Hardest fought match of the night. Everyone was talking in zone afterwards about how awesome the match was. If we are fighting ppl that are ranked, every match will be like this....or atleast, MORE of them.
Final Thoughts: Some people love PvP, some hate it and some would like to do it more but feel like the 'new kid at school with last years cloths' - those that hate it stay out of it, those that want to learn should be given the chance........those that want to abuse the system to gain 3 more emblems per day...well, you are the saddest bunch of people and I hope someone poops in your cereal.
SINcerely,
BobtheGenericBorg
Chronos
Erzok
Make it an elimination encounter. No respawns. Last ship flying wins. Besides feeling more like a battle than a sporting contest. It's fast, which should address some of the excuses given by those who've admitted to afk'ing.
When you're disabled you can opt to stay and watch or exit.
Doesn't eliminate the problems, but might lessen the impact when they occur. Should decrease queue wait times.
At least the matches would rotate quickly and even the afk'ers could be the one kill they would have provided anyway.
if you think their is a cruiser spree now.....implementing this would make 100% of players roll cruisers/carriers. Or, 5 man BoP teams that do the old griefing tactic of killing 1 then waiting for CD's.
Good initiative, poor judgment.
Shakkar, you have a good point. Ranking is the only thing I could think of that would remove "afk pvpers" without adding some sort of ban/kick/report that would undoubtedly be abused. Since the afkers would never rank high, those that do pvp for pvp's sake would never see them and those that are new wouldn't mind the easy kill now and then
1 x PvP Daily - 3 Emblems (C&H - technically, quickest, if you know the shortcut; Ker'rat and Arenas - roughly the same, if PuGging, if you're running with friends and taking them seriously, can potentially take a bit longer).
1 x Fleet Action Daily - 3 Emblems (Even if you have to go from start to finish in one of these, if you enter the low-level instance, at most, this will take an hour.)
1 x B'Tran Exploration - 3 Emblems (5-15 minutes per mission on Normal, longer for higher difficulties or larger teams.)
+1 B'Tran Emblem every 30 minutes (about how long a typical cycle of the 3 missions takes).
1 x Aid the Deferi - 3 Emblems (30-45 minutes on Normal, longer for higher difficulties or larger teams).
1 x Rescue Deferi Captives - 1 Emblem (2 minutes, if no combat, 5-10 minutes depending on level, with combat).
1 x Traelus Satellite Repair - 1 Emblem (5-10 minutes, longer for higher difficulty or larger team.)
1 x Defense Contract (Alhena) - 1 Emblem (5-10 minutes, longer for higher difficulty or larger team.)
1 x Aid Sh'mar (Freighter near Zibal) - 1 Emblem (5-10 minutes, longer for higher difficulty or larger team.)
Standard Daily Emblems Available: 17 (Currently)
Optional Bonus Emblems:
Up to 5 per STF completed (awarded by 1's or 2's when reaching checkpoints in many of the STF's) daily.
+1 each B'Tran cycle completed (every 30 minutes)
+3 emblems every 4-5 days, after gaining enough Computer Cores in the Defense Contract (Alhena) Daily mission.
The Devs are adding new Dailies all the time, which increases the available pool of missions that award Emblems for their completion.
Additionally, you can 'double up' on Emblems, every other day, if, like I do with my 2 VA's, take all available missions on all available characters. Do the Daily Missions for Emblems on ONE of those characters, then do whatever else you'd like. The following day, switch to an Alt, do their Daily Missions TWICE (as the cooldown timers for Dailies start when you ACCEPT the missions, not when you turn them in), gain twice as many Emblems; then do whatever you'd like. The 3rd day, switch back to your first (or another Alt) and do their Dailies TWICE, again, gaining twice as many Emblems in a day's play...
Basically, there are plenty of available Emblems, that don't require an enormous dedication of time (if you can't devote at least 2 hours of time to play, it's hard to justify paying for an MMO... Just ask my wife.
Thus, if a person doesn't enjoy PvP, there is really no 'need' for such a person to queue up for PvP, and potentially ruin the efforts of their fellow players by 'afk-ing', etc.
-Big Red
The problem with a ranking system like SC2, is that you need a large pool of people to draw from. That game has zillions of people playing, so finding two to eight with about the same ranking for a random match takes a few seconds. This game can barely manage to get two teams of about the same level together in less than an hour, and according to one of my friends it's just short of impossible if you're not at the level cap and/or playing at off-peak times.
Another issue is that it might have to be set up to track your Global for the rankings, rather than an individual character. (Yes, that's a level 15 Gorn. But you have 500 hours of PVP experience. No, you can not enter the New Players match.)
Haven't read every post in the thread so if this has been posted before I apologise.
The following suggestion would work I think for CnH but I'm not sure about other pvp types.
I'd prefer a contribution system that tracks players in pvp. Win/loss still has no bearing on emblem reward with this system and personally I'm ok with that as you can have a cracking pvp match, do very little wrong and still lose - players should not be penalised in these cases.
Ok on to it:
What i propose is a modification to the current scoring system to include captures and time (in seconds) in the pvp match. the modified scoreboard looking something like this:
(the figures above i pulled out of the air just to illustrate but I think most will be able to figure out where I'm going with this)
What this does is allow for a fairly simple formula to be applied to to the scores for each player to come up with a 'Contribution' figure.
If you apply the formula (damage+healing+(captures*50000)/time and add another column the table now looks like this.
Now if the system takes a minimum of 100 as the contributing factor then the afker (Grant) would end up with nothing and so he hasn't qualified. This system also uses the individuals dmg/healing/caps vs time in the match rather than overall dmg/healing/caps for the team.
What I really would like added along with a system like this would be a pvp repeatable like the VA/LG exploration where you could get a mission to 'Contribute' in 3 pvp matches and get 1 emblem for each set in addition to the daily.
What do others think about this?
Cheers
EDIT: The forum dont like tables so put in screenshot instead
However, if when you sign up for pvp, you click the ""join any Game" option instead of the" join new game"
you WILL wind up in a pvp match, even if you never push another button. I have many times signed up for pvp, realized the wait was going to be longer than my attention span, (5 minutes or so) & gone to do pve while I'm waiting.Finished a mission, gone outside to have a cigarette, then come back inside expecting to have been kicked from the game because i've been afk 15-20 minutes, only to find myself in an arena or C&H, with a team invite on the screen & (understandably) angry players cursing me out in zone chat.I never pushed engage on the 1 minute timer , I wasn't even in the house! This has happened twice to me this week.I have also been doing pve missions after signing up for "any game" been in the middle of my mission, & then got the 10 second countdown on my screen without being offered the option to hit engage on the 1 minute timer.I now log out of the game every time I'm afk longer than a minute, because i am ALWAYS in a Que for pvp. & not being there to push the engage button when you are offered the game will not keep you out of the match anymore.Sometimes it doesn't even give you the option. if the Devs would fix this it might solve at least a portion of the afk problem.I am in NO WAY excusing afk greifing,but i now KNOW that sometimes its accidental. I realize that lots of people do afk on purpose. There should be a way for active players to kick afk players, whether It's accidental or on purpose. why should 1 person be able to ruin a match for 9 other people?
As Spock said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
Heres a thought;
If a player remains unmoving for more than 30 seconds or remains moving but out of combat for more than 10 minutes in cap and hold or 3 in Arena then all team-mates automatically get a little option in the right side interaction area to vote to kick him.
If more than half the other team-members vote to kick, he gets kicked, looses 100 Starfleet Merit/Honor, and can not re-queue for PvP for another 10 minutes at least.
Or we could just make pvp more competitive and interesting so that people don't feel the need to afk. Like faster paced games, tighter brackets, and auto-teaming.
I know, I know. Nobody wants to do anything positive, we just want to punish those other people who we hate.
There would be no purpose for being out there, other than to fight. Players can come and go as the please, there would be no queues, no Team death match up to X team kills.
You'd be able to enter engagement areas with groups and teams of your choice, yuo can call in for othe rplayers to re-enforce, you could have your whole group exitthe attle area, leaving the AFKer in a "dead" engagement area, while you and your team fly off to look for another battle in the Sector.
AFKers only benefit from the poorly structures reward system(rewards and how they are obtained, will always dictate behavior)...and the fact that they can AFK in a pre-defined "battle in a bottle" that has a definitive end, and its that end that grants the reward, not one's actions and contribution.
Open PvP Sectors can be designed to be inheritly open-ended. Where the objective has a beginning and end, but because its open, it can be used to reward the faction as a whole(territory capture), but any personal reward has to be based on the player's actions....not the side he was on when the objective was met.
a system with around 10 - 20 Orbital Weapon Platforms surrounding a planet.- Platforms start out as Disabled (nuetral).
- Players who get within range can Repair (Set Faction) Platforms.
- Active Platforms can be Disabled and Repaired by opposing Factions.
- Players being disabled will be immediately Respawned in Sector Space and restricted from reentering the System for an escalating period of time (5 -30 minutes).
- Rewards for players can be set by the amount of damage/healing they do/get in the system with opposing players being worth significantly more than NPC's.
- Factions holding all Platforms are able to Beam to the Planets surface where fields of Anomalies are waiting to be collected.
while i agree with the statement of getting nothing if you lose i am also dead set against this as i pug a lot of the time especialy when grinding my fed toons.
what a nightmare that would be if i didnt get anything for games my side lost.
personally id rather see a min damage healing system brought in something like maybe you gotta
get half the damage of the highest damage dealer on your team.
But again that i think would be so hard to impliment.